Time For A 360

2001 Chase Prize Essay Contest: Second Place

By Col Thomas X. Hammes

Originally published in the April 2002 Marine Corps Gazette

"Our current system does not provide significant input from either subordinates or peers. It is based on the observations of only two people."

As Corps we pride ourselves on our willingness to provide commander's intent and then trust our junior leaders to execute. We know they will make critical observations and decisions that may commit our entire force. In fact, we say our preferred method of operation is "reconnaissance pull," a concept based on the idea that the person closest to the fight often has information that is not available to higher headquarters. We accept the risk that some of these decisions will be bad because we know the majority of them will be good. We have found that this trust and confidence in our junior leaders continually pays us back in superior performance. Even more importantly, we know it is the only practical way to conduct fourth-generation warfare.

Yet, in our Corps' most important single function we abandon this approach entirely and revert back to a stovepiped information system. In this one critical function, we trust the observation of only two individuals who, although highly experienced, are removed from the "fight." In a Corps with anywhere from tens to thousands of people in each organization, two people make all the key recommendations to higher headquarters concerning the future of our Corps. Further, the senior of these two individuals is often forced to make his or her recommendations based on distant observations and paperwork passed through the staff.

What is this critical function that relies on a system from a time long
past? Nothing less than our current performance evaluation system (PES). The irony is remarkable. In the last couple of decades we have completely shifted our approach to warfighting, yet we have a fitness report system that our 5th Commandant, Archibald Henderson, would easily recognize.

Obviously, I should not throw stones at the current
system unless I have a suggestion for something that will work better. Further, any substitute must fulfill the key requirements of our current PES-aiding in the selection of Marines for promotion and screening them for key billets. It must also be well-tested, relatively easy to implement, and relatively easy to use. Finally, it should not require a great deal of study and development. Such a system exists today.

It is referred to by several names, but the one I think is most descriptive is the "360-degree report." Under this system, each person is evaluated not just by his immediate superior but also by two peers and three subordinates. The idea is based on two simple but valid concepts.

First, the measure of a truly effective leader is not just that he executes the mission and pleases his boss. He must also motivate his subordinates, ensure they grow professionally, earn the
trust and confidence of his peers, and leave the organization's personnel and equipment in better shape than when he arrived.

Second, while it may not be a formal concept, we all accept the idea that you can fool some of the people all of the time. If we are honest, we even know it is easier to fool your boss than your peers and subordinates. If you accept these two simple observations, then the 360-degree report is an obvious and needed improvement to today's system. Our current system does not provide significant input from either subordinates or peers. It is based on the observations of only two people.

Further, there is an obvious and significant tension between the fact that a good leader must execute the mission, satisfy the boss, earn the trust of his peers, and lead his Marines and the fact that only the boss has any input into our official system for deciding who the good leaders are. In effect, a less than competent leader only has to fool two people to succeed.

Finally, although we are an organization that prides itself on encouraging the free and frank discussion of ideas, we have
created an evaluation system that allows a single person to terminate the career of any outspoken Marines who work for him.

"Unfortunately, our system is still based on the false assumption that a reporting senior has a complete view of each subordinate."

So how can the 360-degree report change this? Simple. It makes use of the two concepts of human organizations that we discussed earlier.

The first-that the true measure of a leader is not limited to how well he pleases his boss-is the primary justification in the literature I have
seen concerning 360-degree reporting. The 360-degree system is based on the idea that selecting leaders requires a complete view of an individual. Further, the system understands that the view you get depends on where you sit.

In contrast, we have a system that assumes every boss can see all aspects of all of his subordinates. We
assume he knows everything-how well they execute the mission, how well they develop their Marines, how well they train them, how well they maintain their equipment, and how well they earn the trust of their peers.

The second concept-that you can fool some of the people all of the time is self-evident, and the proof is left to the reader's own experience. If we accept these two concepts then we should adopt the 360-degree report. I can hear the groans now.

We just went through an incredibly dif ficult change to our fitness report system. It hasn't even had a chance to settle out. We need to give it time to develop a large enough database to see if it will work.

While it is true we changed the form significantly in the last 5 years, we did not change the concept. Providing time for the database to build is pointless since the data is based on an invalid concept. /p>

Unfortunately, our system is still based on the false assumption that a reporting senior has a complete view of each subordinate. Even worse, it weighs the reviewing officers evaluation very heavily-despite that fact we know
many reviewing officers see the Marine reported on (MRO) once a week or less. Our last change may have actually made the PES worse by making the reviewing officer responsible for ranking the MRO against his peers. In contrast, the 360-degree report is based on a fundamentally different concept-that selecting the best leaders requires input from various viewpoints.

We are a hierarchical organization. This would completely upset the ethos that has made us so successful.

In fact, the 360-degree report would finally align our fitness report system with our belief system. From our first day in the Corps we are taught that the Corps is successful because we trust our staff
noncommissioned officers (SNCOs) and NCOs. Yet our current fitness report system does not seek any input from those very Marines.

Such a system will result in a popularity contest with leaders pandering to their Marines.

Anyone who believes this statement gives our Marines very little credit. Upon my commissioning my father advised me to "never lie to the troops." Based on his service in World War II as both an enlisted soldier and an
officer, he knew that the troops see through lies. Worse, it irritates them that you think they are stupid enough to fall for it. I am absolutely certain subordinates will see through efforts to pander to them-and will comment on that fact in a fitness report. Marines don't want to be pampered; they want to be led. Even if you don't credit the
troops with this ability, you know your peers will see through any attempts to pander.

Such a shift will be a long arduous process.

The software to employ such a system not only exists but is in wide use today. A quick search of the Internet shows dozens of sites on 360-degree evaluations-many of which offer software and training
packages for implementation.

It will take years to get useful data from a new system.

In fact, the current system did require years of data because it requires each reporting senior and reviewing officer to build up a pattern of reporting. However, the 360-degree system is not focused on the rating process of individuals but rather on the trends developed by reports of numerous peers, subordinates, and seniors. A minimum of six fellow
Marines will comment on each Marine each year, so trends will quickly become obvious.

It will require significantly more paperwork.

Such a system will require the input of six Marines instead of only two.
However, since many of those Marines do not currently have reporting responsibilities, it will distribute the responsibility more evenly. It will actually reduce the workload of senior Marines because they will no longer have the reviewing officer responsibility. Obtaining more information from more sources, even at the expense of added work, is certainly worth it. Selecting our leaders is the single most important function we perform.

It will cost a fortune to implement.

I don't know the total cost but several factors should hold it down. First, 360-degree reporting systems run on commercial platforms so we should not have any hardware costs. Second, the software is commercially available and will not require a cold start software development program. Third, there is lots of competition in the field, so we can negotiate a price rather than dealing with a single source. An
additional factor in our favor is the Marine Corps Reserve. I suspect some of our reservists work for companies that use such a system. They can provide critical, real-world experience with the system and advice both on procurement and fielding.

The required computers do not exist at the squad level

To this I can only say, "Thank God." With any luck, we will never have e-mail at that level. This will require Marines involved in writing
evaluations to go somewhere else to provide their input. We have more than sufficient computers at the battalion level for this purpose.

Conclusion

The 360-degree report will be a cultural shift of major proportions. It will finally align our PES with our warfighting, training, and tactical culture. We state categorically that we are a reconnaissance pull organization. We state that the man closest to the front often has the best view of the issue. We brag that our Corps places more responsibility in the hands of its NCOs and SNCOs than any other American Service. Each of these statements is true. That makes it critical that we align our evaluation system with these core beliefs. It's time to adopt the 360degree report.